Sir Thomas Legg

We Salute you!

About time

Great job Sir Thomas, even better tags!

Does anyone know how much this enquiry cost? I half heard something on the news along the lines of the £1.2m ordered to be paid back wouldn't cover the cost, but I wasn't really listening so could well be wrong.

Cost £1.16m but it has upturned the belly of the beast and demanded a reform on a massive cost to the tax payer. the costs he wanted paid back go over 4 years.

But it's bigger than that; it highlights the greed that is systemic in our parliament, gives the people a stick to beat them with and the papers a hay day.
He has also put in place recommendations for future expense claims. Millionaires claiming hundreds of thousands for a few hours work is more immoral than those who claim benefit unfairly. those who claim benefit

Yeah I appreciate that, was just interested is all.

I've just heard a few details about one of the people who will face charges. They used faked invoices to claim over £5000 for stationery. £5000 for fucking pens and paper!

We Salute you!

Didn't he ignore mortgage claims by default, even if 2 homes were flipped? If he did go through with that don't salute the cunt chap.

The inquiry cost 1.2million and ordered 1.1million to be repaid. Effectively we have paid 100,000 in order to get us a prospective fees and claims system that will be far more economical in the future. Seems fairly good to me.

Didn't he ignore mortgage claims by default, even if 2 homes were flipped? If he did go through with that don't salute the cunt.

From what I understand, investigation into these issues were expected to be prohibitively expensive in comparison to recouped costs. At some point a reasonable business decision would have to have been made. Provided it isn't possible to repeat this into the future then that is probably going to be satisfactory. There's laying down the law and there's cutting off your nose to spite your face. If that decision is there and it's a good one then I think it would deserve respect.

notice the omission of cunt 1 min before your post.

The whole expenses scandal should be a side issue, of course MPs shouldn't be allowed to make fraudelent claims, but when few people take an active interest in the way we're governed is it any wonder this shit goes down

£5000 for fucking pens and paper!

That's totally understandable, It'd be unfair if they weren't allowed to use solid gold pens.

That's totally understandable, It'd be unfair if they weren't allowed to use solid gold pens.

They do make for better legislation.

Especially when they're loaded with ink made from melted down pound coins and ebony.

But it's bigger than that; it highlights the greed that is systemic in our parliament, gives the people a stick to beat them with and the papers a hay day.
He has also put in place recommendations for future expense claims. Millionaires claiming hundreds of thousands for a few hours work is more immoral than those who claim benefit unfairly. those who claim benefit

I think it highlights the greed that is systemic in people generally.
I disagree that it is 'more' immoral. i think its exactly the same. It is a good result though, I for one am incredibly disapointed in these MPs. How are they meant to motivate people to care about politics now? I'm a bit ashamed, I really wanted to believe it wasn't true.

I think it highlights the greed that is systemic in people generally.
I disagree that it is 'more' immoral. i think its exactly the same.

Greed as a human trait is understandable and in a scarcity environment it's not bad thing in itself.
However there is a degree of moral expectation in those pursuing positions of representation in public service. Ultimately they should be held up to a standard of "pro bono publico" within the realms and remit of their employment. Being a greedy bastard in private business isn't an abuse of trust, as a profit making entity it is wholly expected. However, doing so in public service most definitely is.
We live in a scarecity environment (we are not able to afford to do everything that we would like to do) and to act as a representative in a democratic institution implies a commitment to public good (however the individual may choose to interpret that) Saving a rather controversial platform, there's no way that this can be reconciled with unduly limiting the instruments of public service in acheiving this.

I agree with your points, I think that benefit system fraud is the same abuse of trust though.

Being a greedy bastard in private business isn't an abuse of trust, as a profit making entity it is wholly expected. However, doing so in public service most definitely is.

I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, but I'd say making fraudulent expense claims is a breach of trust in any arena

I agree with your points, I think that benefit system fraud is the same abuse of trust though.

Those who make fraudulent benefit claims are not elected policy makers. You would expect someone like Jaqui Smith, who was in charge when those benefit cheat adverts were rife, to have a sense that perhaps she shouldn't claim all that money on second home's allowance for her sister's flat that she didn't use

yes and i would expect someone with nothing, who has been given something by the rest of society, not to steal more.

yes and i would expect someone with nothing, who has been given something by the rest of society, not to steal more.

You really can't see the difference? I abhor hypocrisy in those who choose to govern public life. You raise the example of someone with nothing. Why do they have nothing? If society was the meritocracy the tories seem to think it is then everyone would have the prospect of something. As it is many don't and as such there are some who steal more. It's greedy yes, as deception shouldn't be the solution, but morally the two scenarios are completely different.

I see a difference, I understand there are two different motivations for the stealing, but they are both stealing. I dislike both equally. I'm also unsure about 'levels' of morality, surely there is just morality and immorality, not degrees of them.

I see a difference, I understand there are two different motivations for the stealing, but they are both stealing. I dislike both equally. I'm also unsure about 'levels' of morality, surely there is just morality and immorality, not degrees of them.

Some stealing is justifiable, some stealing is more justifiable - there are degrees here.

Those who make fraudulent benefit claims are not elected policy makers. You would expect someone like Jaqui Smith, who was in charge when those benefit cheat adverts were rife, to have a sense that perhaps she shouldn't claim all that money on second home's allowance for her sister's flat that she didn't use

This might be worth a quick read for you: (very interesting study from late last year) -

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091229105906.htm

I'm not arguing with you Tynan...I always end up looking stupid ; )

Stealing from a multinational such as Burger king is better than stealing money from the pockets of tax payers, who have given you the job to spend it in their best interest.

I guess the second has a thicker slice of deceit